In my typical style, I'll avoid a lengthy inital commentary. Suffice it to say I find the practice deplorable, and support as open a government as can possibly be reconciled with the exigencies of national security.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Am I crazy, or is it a little surprising that Bill Moyers would be partnering with U.S. News? That is to say, isn't U.S. News a little on the conservative side, which Bill Moyers is progressive?
It is a concern, though I think with the nature of the war about double the normal amount is surprisingly low. I could maybe understand classifying the water data, since terror attack by municipal water source is an issue. But if terrorist wanted to use SUV tires to kill us, they could hardly do worse than our own companies.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its quadruple the "normal" amount (twice in two years what Clinton had in four), and its not so much quantity I'm concerned with (that's merely an indicator to scrutinize more closely) than category.
If this administration is hiding data that could save consumer lives (say, by influencing consumer buying decisions in our free market economy), that is deplorable.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
This does not surprise me one bit. You'd have to be willfully ignorant not to see that the current administration is exceptionally secretive. Personally, I think it makes America seem remarkably less democratic.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
It's disturbing. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ah, thanks for the arithmetic pointer. Though I guess they might try a more meaningful statement that encompasses all of Clinton's years or the average rate of secrecy designation. Is it possible it would not sound as shocking? I'll repeat, I agree with you about the tires.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Why isn't this article/thread generating more discussion?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What is there to discuss, this thread doesn't mention Iraq or homosexuals (or rampant Iraqi homosexuality)
All it talks about is some sneaky beurocrats probably getting paid to hide information from us.
This is the information age. Those who handle the information the best will be king. Right now, that power resides in Bush's lackeys and the business powers who bought them.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
If tire safety data were to fall into the hands of the enemy!!! Watch out!
I'm telling you now people, this is just the first in a long line of things the administration is doing for our own good. Only people who intend to break the law and buy their tires with full knowledge of their defects would ever want to know this stuff. Unpatriotic jerks!
Me, I buy my tires from guys wearing trenchcoats, late at night. If they are bald, I just take that as an indication that my government loves me and cares for me, by making sure that my tire stocks keep rising.
It's for the children, people!
Posted by Mr. Sir (Member # 6017) on :
quote: If tire safety data were to fall into the hands of the enemy!!! Watch out!
What the article said was...
quote: The Bush administration is denying access to auto and tire safety information, for instance, that manufacturers are required to provide under a new "early-warning system" created following the Ford-Firestone tire scandal four years ago.
Unless you were referring to out of line jury awards when you mentioned "the enemy"...
This may not be as ludicrous as it sounds at first glance. The article doesn't tell the whole story. For all we know, maybe they are only preventing the release of preliminary data from a new and very unique program. I don't know for a fact, but I suspect this early warning program was government-legislated as part of the lawsuit settlement. If so, there may be legitimate concern that very preliminary data may be useful for looking for "glaring problems" early on as a matter of public safety, but may not be appropriate for general consumption lest the public draw to many conclusions from preliminary data and impact the market in a negative way. The way things work in high-volume manufacturing, the first units out the door have the most variation in quality, and may not be good predictors of the long turn. Quality statistics typically not only improve, but also reduce in variation over time. The average Joe doesn't understand that. If the program was government-legislated (which I suspect but admit I don't know for fact that it was) for the purpose of protecting the populous, then maybe it makes sense to withhold that preliminary data and let the market only have what it otherwise would have had (and has in other markets) with later data, so people don't rush away from products because of a bad line startup that will be corrected. Just because information exists doesn't mean it is in the best interests of the populace that it be public.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Given the environmental reports that have been suppressed and redacted when disagreeing with the Bush admin's position, I'm reluctant to assume so charitably.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
To Sir...with love:
Blow it out your...
j/k.
Actually, I thought of the possibility that the data "might" get misused and, frankly, I don't buy it. There are plenty of datasets out there that are even more "powerful" in the sense that they contain information that could be used to sue, or by the press to arouse the masses.
Basically, I think this a mistake that will be corrected at some point. Meanwhile, it's fun to poke fun at it. Because it is ridiculous.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
A sidebar to that U.S. News article discusses something I find even more interesting: that the whole concept of "state secrets" as a legal reason to conceal information from the public came about as a result of a 1953 Cold War court case in which three widows sued the Air Force following their husbands' deaths in a disastrous plane crash. They claimed negligence; the Air Force said to permit any discussion of the topic would endanger national security.
Since then, this case has been used as precedent for practically every "state secrets" case of its type.
Ironically, the Air Force's internal explanation for the crash was declassified under Clinton, and a pilot's daughter found it last March; basically, there WERE no state or military secrets involved, and the case WAS one of simple negligence.
They attempted to reopen the case, but the Bush Administration petitioned the Supreme Court not to hear it -- arguing (wrongly, as court records show) that the original defense lawyers never claimed that the records would betray military secrets, and arguing furthermore that what doesn't seem like a secret nowadays (the negligence of a few techs) would have been highly damaging in the context of the Cold War.
The Supreme Court must have agreed, because they declined to hear the case -- without providing a reason.
I find this fairly interesting, because I can't help wondering how many things the Bush team considers "secret" now -- like pipeline construction routes, tire warranty information, and meeting minutes -- will look to future generations like clear examples of hiding behind an iron curtain.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm beginning to think Bush should be impeached. He's turning into a long-term huge liability for this country.
Oh well, I can at least console myself with the thought that we may be able to vote him out of office soon.
Now we just have to watch out when Jeb runs. He's a bigger idiot than his older brother. And his wife is an elitist thief. At least Laura Bush has class.
If somehow Neil Bush runs for president, I think it'll be time to sell all my stock and keep my money in a mattress. That I then promptly burn in the middle of Tianamen Squ...um, I mean in the middle of the Washington mall.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)